"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever

[WillMc88]

It's an attempt to squeak around the germane point, that religions claim actual facts and empirical truths, that the religious can't back up.

God either factually exists as the religious claim, or he does not. There is no amount of imagination filled, dances of semantic obfuscation that alters that one little bit.

Christ was either resurrected or he was not.

Mary either had a virgin birth or she got knocked up by some guy.

Imagination without the underpinning of belief in the factual truth of the above claims is not religion, it's fiction.

All very true. These are the type of claims I was talking about where the truth value can be evaluated.

 

[zoltanspawn]

It's an attempt to squeak around the germane point, that religions claim actual facts and empirical truths, that the religious can't back up.

God either factually exists as the religious claim, or he does not. There is no amount of imagination filled, dances of semantic obfuscation that alters that one little bit.

Christ was either resurrected or he was not.

Mary either had a virgin birth or she got knocked up by some guy.

Imagination without the underpinning of belief in the factual truth of the above claims is not religion, it's fiction.

Do you have some problem actually engaging me and my posts rather than indirectly commenting on them via Will? I'm not hard to talk to.

I disagree that the germane point of religion is to establish actual facts and empirical truths. Are you sure you're not talking about something else?

In any case, that you seem to think that the incredible variety of religious cultures automatically includes a notion of God, let alone Christ or Mary is baffling.

 

[hotatlboi]

I know the teachings of Jesus were very good and a great way to live by but since I have been backed out of a relationship with God for so long, I can't say that I make a strong defense for this really.

This world does need a hero though. If Jesus is real and is alive out there with God the Father, we sure could use their help right about now.

wow man, you're doing much better than when you used to preach on here about how the end was near and everyone was going to hell.

Well done!

 

[zoltanspawn]

All very true. These are the type of claims I was talking about where the truth value can be evaluated.

Sure, but that's not the only way to think about stuff....

Why not return to the first post?

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life" - John 3:16

It has no personal resonance with me, but I don't think contemplating this expression solely in terms of truth or falsity really does it justice. What did it mean to the person who wrote it? What could it mean to me? If I felt it were interesting, how could I paint about it? What would it mean to genuinely believe in the proposition? What significance has it had through history? So on and so forth?

 

[opinterph]

Makes more sense.

This world does need a hero though.

Let's be each other's hero.

… added some time later by an unknown author.

literal

Why not lay off a bit and let those who are still seeking insight with an open mind have a crack at the discussion.

I have an open mind

… the key is seeking

Really?

This guy …

Truth-and-falsity is not the only axis on which our minds operate.

Amen.​

Truth may have a functional value that supersedes the literal or tangible.

In other words, the literal or tangible truth of a matter may have less virtue than the functional benefit that is derived from its practice or acceptance.​

Perhaps some readers of this thread may recognize that an appreciation of its initial concept requires a certain degree of mental gymnastics. Perhaps these individuals substitute functional value in the place of some other alternative value that is arguably more demonstrable or absolute. They recognize that allowing such a “process of distortion” carries with it new possibilities for thinking and viewing the World.

Maybe the concept has the potential to be more complicated than a simple rivalry between truth and willful ignorance.

 

[Willie Boy]

The Bible doesn't say a lot of things it should and it says a lot of things it probably shouldn't. It's full of inconsistencies and fallacies.


I personally disagree, but that's because of the parts where Jesus tells his followers to bring non-believers before him and slay them; and that part in Mark where it's essentially said that true believers can drink deadly poison and survive. I have a hard time believing that the nice men in suits who come to my house can chug a bottle of Draino and live.

I don't know what book you read those from, but it wasn't the Bible.

There's this really awesome quote, said by Gandhi, which I believe is “Be the change you want to see in the world.” The world needs all of us to step up to the plate, not a lone wolf to shoulder our burdens and insecurities. We all have it in us to change the world for the better. Let's be each other's hero.

That's just a paraphrase of the Golden Rule "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Basically Jesus was saying, "Stop trying to get revenge under the guise of justice, show people a better way to live, help them understand how it feels to be treated with courtesy and respect. Then they will know how to treat others in such a manner."

 

[WillMc88]

It has no personal resonance with me, but I don't think contemplating this expression solely in terms of truth or falsity really does it justice. What did it mean to the person who wrote it? What could it mean to me? If I felt it were interesting, how could I paint about it? What would it mean to genuinely believe in the proposition? What significance has it had through history? So on and so forth?

The teachings of Jesus, regardless of whether or not he existed, were good lessons to follow in my opinion.

However, as far as that specific scripture is concerned, I wouldn't say it's quite the same thing as appreciating the philosophical meaning of a message.

If it's interpreted literally, it posits the existence of a god. That god either exists or does not exists. And I can tell you that the majority of Christianity most definitely accepts the literal interpretation.

If it's interpreted metaphorically, and does not assume the existence of a god, then I would think the meaning is lost. Normally it would inspire awe and elicit certain emotions/feelings in the reader; but if the reader doesn't believe it actually happened, or that the god in question really exists, then this wouldn't be the case. What meaning would this have for the reader if this never really happened?

If it's interpreted as fiction, then the reader may vicariously experience the array of emotions felt by the people for whom this god gave his son in this storybook. Or he may not.

 

[zoltanspawn]

The teachings of Jesus, regardless of whether or not he existed, were good lessons to follow in my opinion.

However, as far as that specific scripture is concerned, I wouldn't say it's quite the same thing as appreciating the philosophical meaning of a message.

If it's interpreted literally, it posits the existence of a god. That god either exists or does not exists. And I can tell you that the majority of Christianity most definitely accepts the literal interpretation.

If it's interpreted metaphorically, and does not assume the existence of a god, then I would think the meaning is lost. Normally it would inspire awe and elicit certain emotions/feelings in the reader; but if the reader doesn't believe it actually happened, or that the god in question really exists, then this wouldn't be the case. What meaning would this have for the reader if this never really happened?

If it's interpreted as fiction, then the reader may vicariously experience the array of emotions felt by the people for whom this god gave his son in this storybook. Or he may not.

I think you are very determined to remain on the question of truth or falsity! Why not simply engage the passage with your imagination? Put aside for the moment whether to take it literally or metaphorically and contemplate its meaning. Metaphors become quite interesting when they're not sabotaged upfront with robotic disclaimers about their fictiveness.

Later (or simultaneously even if you are adept at mental calisthenics) you may return to the question of interpretation you pose. Having bothered with the momentary excercise, you may have gained something that folks who dismiss the expression as false out of hand will not.

 

[TX-Beau]

I think you are very determined to remain on the question of truth or falsity! Why not simply engage the passage with your imagination? Put aside for the moment whether to take it literally or metaphorically and contemplate its meaning. Metaphors become quite interesting when they're not sabotaged upfront with robotic disclaimers about their fictiveness.

Later (or simultaneously even if you are adept at mental calisthenics) you may return to the question of interpretation you pose. Having bothered with the momentary excercise, you may have gained something that folks who dismiss the expression as false out of hand will not.

One more try. If you are talking about statements like "do unto others....." you can spend all the time you like in your imagination posing and countering ideas about how that works, whether it's meaningful, how it applies, whether it's changed your life or not; because that statement stripped of it's religious drag, does not posit a factual reality. It's a question of behavior and ethics, and in and of itself, says nothing tangible. It's philosophy.

But if you say, "don't sin because you'll go to hell.." that statement does posit a factual reality, and a tangible punishment for disobedience and certainly must be evaluated in terms of it's veracity, because if it's fiction, it has no meaning. The only people who will take that seriously (and really not even a lot of them) are people who believe in a factual, not intellectual, not philosophical, not metaphysical, not imaginary, not fictitious, not metaphorical, God.

Let's count the direct assumptions of fact (and there are plenty of indirect to be had) in the original quote:

"for god(1) so loved the world(2) that he gave his only begotten son(3) that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life(4)"

If there is no god, there is no love of the world, no begotten son, no reason to believeth, and no everlasting reward.

What does that mean if even one of those things is false, and what great insights are derived from speculation over the motives of a non-existent deity, his non-existent son, and his promises of fictitious reward for faith?

That statement must be evaluated in terms of veracity or it has no meaning whatsoever.

Now you may certainly run about saying something like:

"...consider the ramifications of a fictitious God, who might love the world so much, that he sacrificed his virgin birth son, so people who he told to believe in his fictitious self, could have a non- existent immortality..."

What kind of response do you think you might get to that? Where is the insight?

 

[opinterph]

Where is the insight?

“Father?”
“Yes, my son?” Abraham replied.
“The fire and wood are here,” Isaac said, “but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?” [Link]​

 

[TX-Beau]

And the insight is what? That belief in fictitious Gods causes one to sacrifice one's children?

There's absolutely no punch to that story, or point, if God, Abraham, Isaac and the sheep never existed. The only way you get to insight is to evaluate that with the assumption that it actually happened.

If it's false, one might as well ponder the insight of woodcutters, wolves, delicious grandmothers, and people who allow little girls to wander alone in the forest.

 

[zoltanspawn]

TX-Beau, I don't think there is really need for this "one more try" business. We're having a conversation, and I don't think either of us is being willfully difficult or stupid. We may simply have a difference of opinion.

I don't agree with you that our bible quote must be evaluated in terms of veracity or have no meaning whatsoever. In fact, I think that putting aside the issue of fictiveness makes the quote more meaningful, not less. Perhaps another example would help, from a quarter which (almost) no one would champion the veracity of...say Harry Potter. Is there more, or less, to gain from The Goblet of Fire when disbelief has been suspended? (I would obviously argue more.) There are those who spend their time claiming that hobgoblins don't exist, yet that is entirely beside the point.

Yes. The big difference is that there are too many people who think that some religion is true (in the same way that others think it false.) I don't especially admire that point of view either. It may simply be more personally sufferable to me that the literalists seem to enjoy their human frailty rather than pretend they have none.

 

[zoltanspawn]

If it's false, one might as well ponder the insight of woodcutters, wolves, delicious grandmothers, and people who allow little girls to wander alone in the forest.

Oh look! Yeah, why not? Isaac's story is more interesting to me than The Big Bad Wolf, but there's an audience for just about everything.

 

[WillMc88]

I think you are very determined to remain on the question of truth or falsity! Why not simply engage the passage with your imagination? Put aside for the moment whether to take it literally or metaphorically and contemplate its meaning. Metaphors become quite interesting when they're not sabotaged upfront with robotic disclaimers about their fictiveness.

Later (or simultaneously even if you are adept at mental calisthenics) you may return to the question of interpretation you pose. Having bothered with the momentary excercise, you may have gained something that folks who dismiss the expression as false out of hand will not.

Ah, so you're calling it a metaphor. Why didn't you just say that in the first place?

Again, what exactly do you mean by bringing up 'imagination' in this conversation? You could try explaining that and how it relates to the specific scripture.

What meaning could this scripture have if the things described did not happen?

 

[WillMc88]

TX-Beau, I don't think there is really need for this "one more try" business. We're having a conversation, and I don't think either of us is being willfully difficult or stupid. We may simply have a difference of opinion.

I don't agree with you that our bible quote must be evaluated in terms of veracity or have no meaning whatsoever. In fact, I think that putting aside the issue of fictiveness makes the quote more meaningful, not less. Perhaps another example would help, from a quarter which (almost) no one would champion the veracity of...say Harry Potter. Is there more, or less, to gain from The Goblet of Fire when disbelief has been suspended? (I would obviously argue more.) There are those who spend their time claiming that hobgoblins don't exist, yet that is entirely beside the point.

Yes. The big difference is that there are too many people who think that some religion is true (in the same way that others think it false.) I don't especially admire that point of view either. It may simply be more personally sufferable to me that the literalists seem to enjoy their human frailty rather than pretend they have none.

The meaning of something is sometimes different depending on if it actually happened or it did not. It can be enjoyed, examined, interpreted, applied, etc. either way, but the end result can depend on whether or not it actually happened.

For example, with this scripture, if I believe that it is historically accurate, it may move me to worship this god. I would then alter my life because of this belief.

If I do not believe it is based on actual events, then I may just appreciate it as a moving, inspiring, exciting, etc. piece of fiction, kind of like Harry Potter.

 

[opinterph]

There's absolutely no punch to that story, or point …

All three of the Abrahamic traditions of faith include a story about an only son being sacrificed.

Isaac in the Jewish faith
Isma‘il in the Islamic faith
Jesus in the Christian faith​

In all three illustrations, the sons were rescued and went forward to accomplish great things – though the Christian son suffered death prior to his recovery.

The quote in the opening post of this thread speaks in terms of the paternal figure and his love for the only son. Most people easily comprehend the magnitude of that bond in the illustration. For the guy in charge to regard the success of the world as a matter of greater importance than protecting his own son is quite remarkable.

It is perhaps pertinent to note, in Buddhism the Bodhisattva ideal is self-sacrifice.

 

[TX-Beau]

The meaning of something is sometimes different depending on if it actually happened or it did not. It can be enjoyed, examined, interpreted, applied, etc. either way, but the end result can depend on whether or not it actually happened.

I'd actually take this one step further. Harry Potter is fiction, written as fiction for the entertainment of people. While it's certainly possible to consider the tao of Dumbledore, J.K. Rowling made no such claims.

Scripture on the other hand is not intended as fiction, it claims authority, and as such, the question of veracity is incredibly germane in evaluating the things it says. Just like the veracity of anatomy textbooks is very important, while the stories of Shakespeare, require no such scrutiny.

You can certainly read scripture as fiction if you want, but that is not it's purpose, and that makes it fundamentally different.

 

[zoltanspawn]

The meaning of something is sometimes different depending on if it actually happened or it did not. It can be enjoyed, examined, interpreted, applied, etc. either way, but the end result can depend on whether or not it actually happened.

For example, with this scripture, if I believe that it is historically accurate, it may move me to worship this god. I would then alter my life because of this belief.

If I do not believe it is based on actual events, then I may just appreciate it as a moving, inspiring, exciting, etc. piece of fiction, kind of like Harry Potter.

Hmmm, sure.

It's weird to me to "just appreciate" something as moving or inspiring though.

 

[TX-Beau]

All three of the Abrahamic traditions of faith include a story about an only son being sacrificed.

Isaac in the Jewish faith
Isma‘il in the Islamic faith
Jesus in the Christian faith​

In all three illustrations, the sons were rescued and went forward to accomplish great things – though the Christian son suffered death prior to his recovery.

The quote in the opening post of this thread speaks in terms of the paternal figure and his love for the only son. Most people easily comprehend the magnitude of that bond in the illustration. For the guy in charge to regard the success of the world as a matter of greater importance than protecting his own son is quite remarkable.

It is perhaps pertinent to note, in Buddhism the Bodhisattva ideal is self-sacrifice.

Your first three are one and the same tradition, and the point stands. The notion of self sacrifice is pretty common to just about every culture I can name, it's not arcane, it's not mysterious, and doesn't need religious clothes to understand in the first place.

I'd hardly call that insight.

Anyway the original quote wasn't about God loving us all so much he sacrificed his son, it was about him loving us so much that he offed Christ so people who believed in him could go to heaven. Those of us who appreciate his love in the abstract, without believing would be hell bound anyway if it's true.

Which seems to suggest, that both metaphorically and empirically it's pretty important if that statement is true or not.

 

[Royal Heart]

I don't know what book you read those from, but it wasn't the Bible.

Well the part about drinking deadly poison and it not harming you is definitely in the Bible. Mark 16:17 or 18. Check it out.

That's just a paraphrase of the Golden Rule "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Basically Jesus was saying, "Stop trying to get revenge under the guise of justice, show people a better way to live, help them understand how it feels to be treated with courtesy and respect. Then they will know how to treat others in such a manner."

No, no, it's very different from the Golden Rule.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" can be problematic, but the spirit of the message is, "Don't be a dick." Treat others well, respect their boundaries, help them when the need it.

"Be the change that you want to see" means don't bitch and complain about how terrible everything is. If you want things to change for the better, then begin by changing yourself. Live as though the world were as you believe it should be, to show it what it can be.

The two messages are very different. "Don't be a dick" is about policing your actions. It's fine to think everyone's an asshole, but don't shit all over them if you don't want them to do the same to you. You can help others and be smiles, but it doesn't have to mean anything to you, on the inside.

"Be the change" is about examining why you may think everyone's an asshole (hint: they're not, you are). You'll want to help others because you've had a major internal change in the way you look at the world and yourself.